INTRODUCTION (continued 2)

Says our blessed Saviour: “For what is a man profited, if he should gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

The loss of a soul infinitely exceeds all finite calculations. It is not only deprived forever and ever of all good but is plunged into misery inexpressible and everlasting. All temporal things dwindle to nothing when placed in comparison with eternal realities. The rights, liberties, and wealth of nations are of little value compared with one immortal soul. But astonishing to think that millions and millions have been put at everlasting hazard only for the chance of defending temporal things!

The habits and manners of a soldier’s life are calculated, as we have already seen, to demoralize them, to obliterate all early serious impressions, to introduce and confirm them in the most daring wickedness and fit them for everlasting destruction. And notwithstanding God may have occasionally, to display his sovereign power, snatched some soldiers from the ranks of rebellion and made them the heirs of his grace, yet no sober Christian will say that the army is a likely place to promote their salvation; but, on the contrary, must acknowledge that it is a dangerous place for the souls of men. It may be assumed as an undeniable fact that the great mass of soldiers are notoriously depraved and wicked. With but few exceptions their impiety grows more daring the longer they practice war; and when it is considered that thousands and thousands of such are hurried by war prematurely into eternity, with all their sins unpardoned, what an amazing sacrifice appears only for some supposed temporal good. But when it is remembered that this infinite sacrifice is made merely for the chance of obtaining some temporal advantage, the folly of war appears in more glaring colors, as the battle is not always to the strong. Those who are contending for their rights, and are least in the wrong, are about as often unsuccessful as otherwise, and then they very much increase their evils in a temporal point of view. A wise man would not engage in a lawsuit to recover a cent, admitting that it was his just due, if the trial put to the hazard his whole estate. But this bears no comparison with one soul in competition with all temporal things; and yet men, professing to be wise, not only put one soul at hazard but millions, not for the chance of defending all temporal good, but often for a mere bubble, the hollow sound of honor; and many of those who are watching for souls, and must give an account, instead of sounding the alarm, approve of it.

All who engage in war, either in the field or otherwise, practically regard time more than eternity, and temporal more than eternal things.

If souls are of more value than temporal things, and eternity of more consequence than time, it must be unwise to engage in a war and put souls to immediate hazard of everlasting ruin, and totally wrong for Christians to engage in it.

VIII. WAR IS UNWISE, AS IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE PROFESSED END FOR WHICH IT IS INTENDED

The professed object of war generally is to preserve liberty and produce a lasting peace; but war never did and never will preserve liberty and produce a lasting peace, for it is a divine decree that all nations who take the sword shall perish with the sword. War is no more adapted to preserve liberty and produce a lasting peace than midnight darkness is to produce noonday light.

The principles of war and the principles of the gospel are as unlike as heaven and hell. The principles of war are terror and force, but the principles of the gospel are mildness and persuasion. Overcome a man by the former and you subdue only his natural power, but not his spirit; overcome a man by the latter, and you conquer his spirit and render his natural power harmless. Evil can never be subdued by evil. It is returning good for evil that overcomes evil effectually. It is, therefore, alone the spirit of the gospel that can preserve liberty and produce a lasting peace. Wars can never cease until the principles and spirit of war are abolished.

Mankind have been making the experiment with war for ages to secure liberty and a lasting peace; or, rather, they have ostensibly held out these objects as a cover to their lusts and passions. And what has been the result? Generally the loss of liberty, the overturning of empires, the destruction of human happiness, and the drenching of the earth with the blood of man.

In most other pursuits mankind generally gain wisdom by experience; but the experiment of war has not been undertaken to acquire wisdom. It has, in fact, been undertaken and perpetuated for ages to gratify the corrupt desires of men. The worst of men have delighted in the honors of military fame and it is what they have a strong propensity for; and how can a Christian take pleasure in that employment which is the highest ambition of ungodly men? The things that are highly esteemed among men are an abomination in the sight of God. Is it not, therefore, important that every one naming the name of Christ should bear open testimony against the spirit and practice of war and exhibit the spirit and temper of the gospel before the world that lieth in wickedness, and let their lights shine before men?

But what can the men of the world think of such Christians as are daily praying that wars may cease to the ends of the earth, while they have done nothing and are doing nothing to counteract its destructive tendency? Alas! too many are doing much by their lives and conversation to support its spirit and principles. Can unbelievers rationally suppose such prayers to be sincere? Will they not rather conclude that they are perfect mockery? What would be thought of a man daily praying that the means used for his sick child might be blessed for his recovery, when he was constantly administering to him known poison? With the same propriety do those Christians pray that war may come to a final end, while they are supporting its vital principles.

It is contrary to fact that war is calculated to preserve liberty and secure a lasting peace; for it has done little else but destroy liberty and peace and make the earth groan under the weight of its terror and distress.

It is contrary to the word of God that war is calculated to promote peace on earth and good will toward men. The law that is to produce this happy effect will not be emitted from the council of war or the smoke of a camp; but the law shall go forth out of Zion, and the Lord shall rebuke the strong nations and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; then nations shall no more lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn the art of war any more; then shall the earth be filled with the abundance of peace and there shall be nothing to hurt or destroy. It is reserved alone for the triumph of the gospel to produce peace on earth and good will to men.

If war does actually provoke insult and mischief; if it increases difficulties, destroys property and liberty; if it diminishes happiness, injures the morals of society, hazards eternal for only the chance of defending temporal things, and, finally, does not answer the end for which it was intended, then it must be very unwise to engage in it, and it must be wrong for Christians to do anything to promote it, and right to do all in their power to prevent it.

WAR IS CRIMINAL

I am now to show that war, when judged of on the principles of the gospel, is highly criminal.

I. GOING TO WAR IS NOT KEEPING FROM THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL, BUT IS RUNNING INTO TEMPTATION

... I would have it understood that I consider every act of mankind which is palpably contrary to the spirit and precepts of the gospel criminal.

It is an express precept of the gospel to abstain from all appearance of evil. “Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation” is also an express command of Christ.

A person desiring not only to abstain from evil, but from the very appearance of it, will suffer wrong rather than hazard that conduct which may involve doing wrong. He will be so guarded that if he errs at all he will be likely to give up his right when he might retain it without injuring others.

No person, it is believed, will attempt to maintain that there is no appearance of evil in carnal warfare, or that it is not a scene of great temptation.

One great object of the gospel is to produce good morals, to subdue the irascible passions of men and bring them into sweet subjection to the gospel of peace.

But war cannot be prosecuted without rousing the corrupt passions of mankind. In fact, it is altogether the effect of lust and passion. In times of war almost every measure is taken for the express purpose of inflaming the passions of men, because they are the vital springs of war, and it would not exist without them. Those who are engaged in war, both in the council and in the field, have a feverish passion, which varies as circumstances may happen to change. Those who are actually engaged in the heat of battle are usually intoxicated with rage. Should this be denied by any one, I would appeal to the general approbation bestowed on the artist who displays most skill in painting scenes of this kind. He who can represent the muscular powers most strongly exerted, the passions most inflamed, and the visage most distorted with rage, will gain the highest applause. The truth of the assertion is, therefore, generally admitted. Some men, perhaps, may be so much under the influence of pride as to have the appearance of stoical indifference when their antagonists are at some distance, but let them meet sword in hand and the scene is at once changed.

The temptations for those who constitute, or those who encourage and support, armies to commit or to connive at immorality are too various and too multiplied to be distinctly mentioned.

Who can deny that war is altogether a business of strife? But, says an inspired apostle, “where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.”

Now, if war is a scene of confusion and strife and every evil work, it is impossible for any one to engage in it and avoid the appearance of evil or be out of the way of temptation; those who are armed with deathly weapons and thirsting for the blood of their fellow-mortals surely cannot be said to exhibit no appearance of evil. But if engaging in wars is putting on the appearance of evil and running into temptation, then it is highly criminal to engage in it.

II. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT NATURALLY INFLAMES THE PRIDE OF MAN

One of the abominable things which proceed out of the corrupt heart of man, as represented by our Saviour, is pride. “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” “The Lord hates a proud look.” “Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord.” That pride is criminal and that humility is commendable will doubtless be admitted by all who believe the Scriptures.

Pride, however, is one of the chief sources of war. It is pride that makes men glory in their strength and prowess; it is pride that hinders them from confessing their faults and repairing the injury done to others.

Although pride is commonly condemned in the abstract, yet it is generally commended in soldiers and fanned by every species of art and adulation, not only by men of the world but too often by those who bear the Christian name. And why is it necessary to inflame the pride of soldiers? Because it is well understood that soldiers without pride are not fit for their business.

If war is a Christian duty, why should not the example and precepts of Christ, instead of the example of the heroes of this world, be exhibited to those who fight to stimulate them? Is not Christ as worthy of imitation as the Cæsars and Alexanders of this world? He was a triumphant conqueror; he vanquished death and hell, and purchased eternal redemption for his people; but he conquered by resignation and triumphed by his death. Here is an example worthy of the highest emulation. And why not animate soldiers by it? Only because it would unnerve their arms for war and render them harmless to their foes.

It is so common to compliment the pride of soldiers that, instead of considering it that abominable thing which the Lord hates, they consider it a virtue. We frequently hear “gentlemen of the sword,” as they are styled, in reply to the flattery bestowed upon them, frankly declare that it is their highest ambition to obtain the praise of their fellow-citizens; and, of course, they confess that they are seeking the praise of men more than the praise of God. These gentlemen, however, are far less criminal than those who lavish flattery on them; for doubtless most of them are sincere and think themselves in the way of their duty, while their profession often leads them, necessarily, from the means of knowing correctly what is duty. While professing Christians have been taught from their cradles that the profession of arms is not merely an allowable but a noble employment, it is easy for them to slide into the current and go with the multitude to celebrate victories and to eulogize heroes, without once reflecting whether they are imitating their Lord and Master. But is it not time for Christians to examine and ascertain if war is tolerated in the gospel of peace before they join in festivities to celebrate its bloody feats? How would a pagan be astonished if he had been taught the meek, lowly, and forgiving spirit and principles of the gospel, without knowing the practice of Christians, to see a host of men, professing to be influenced by these blessed principles, marshaled in all the pomp of military parade, threatening destruction to their fellow-mortals! Would he not conclude that either he or they had mistaken the genius of the gospel, or that they believed it to be but a fable?

It is a notorious fact, which requires no confirmation, that military men, decorated with finery and clad in the glitter of arms, instead of being meek and lowly in their temper and deportment, are generally flushed with pride and haughtiness; and, indeed, what purpose do their decorations and pageantry answer but that of swelling their vanity? Their employment is not soft and delicate. Other men who follow rough employments wear rough clothing; but the soldier’s occupation is not less rough than the butcher’s, though, in the world’s opinion, it is more honorable to kill men than to kill cattle.

But if war has a natural tendency to inflame, and does inflame and increase the pride of men, it is criminal; it does that which the Lord hates, and it must be highly criminal to engage in it.

III. WAR NECESSARILY INFRINGES ON THE CONSCIENCES OF MEN, AND THEREFORE IS CRIMINAL

Liberty of conscience is a sacred right delegated to man by his Creator, who has given no authority to man to infringe in the least on the conscience of his fellow-man. Though a man, by following the dictates of his conscience, may be injured by men, yet they have no authority to deprive him of the rights of conscience. To control the conscience is alone the prerogative of God. That man has no right to violate the conscience of his fellow-man is a truth which few, under the light of the gospel, since the days of ignorance and superstition, have ventured to call in question.

But military governments, from their very nature, necessarily infringe on the consciences of men. Though the word of God requires implicit obedience to rulers in all things not contrary to the Scriptures, it utterly forbids compliance with such commands as are inconsistent with the gospel. We must obey God rather than man, and fear God as well as honor the king. But governments, whether monarchial or republican, make laws as they please, and compel obedience at the point of the sword. They declare wars, and call upon all their subjects to support them.

Offensive war, by all professing Christians, is considered a violation of the laws of Heaven; but offensive war is openly prosecuted by professing Christians under the specious name of self-defense. France invaded Spain, Germany, and Russia; England invaded Holland and Denmark; and the United States invaded Canada, under the pretense of defensive war. The fact is, however, that no man can, on gospel principles, draw a line of distinction between offensive and defensive war so as to make the former a crime and the latter a duty, simply because the gospel has made no such distinction. But while many Christians profess to make the distinction, and to consider offensive war criminal, they ought to have the liberty to judge, when war is waged, whether it is offensive or defensive, and to give or withhold their aid accordingly; otherwise they are not permitted the free exercise of their consciences.

But suppose this principle adopted by governments. Could they prosecute war while they left every individual in the free exercise of his conscience to judge whether such war was offensive or defensive and to regulate his conduct accordingly? Would it be possible for governments to carry on war if they depended for support on the uncertain opinion of every individual? No; such a procedure would extinguish the vital strength of war and lay the sword in the dust. The fact is well known, and monarchs declare war and force their subjects to support it. The majority in republican governments declare war and demand and enforce obedience from the minority.

Though the constitutions of governments may, in the most solemn manner, guarantee to citizens the free exercise of their consciences, yet governments find it necessary practically to make an exception in relation to war, and a man may plead conscientious motives in vain to free himself from contributing to the support of war.

I think it proper here to notice what has appeared to me a gross absurdity among some Christians in this land. They have openly declared that in their opinion the late war was offensive; that it was contrary to the laws of God, and that they were opposed to it; but though they wished not to support it because it was criminal, yet they said, if they were called on in a constitutional way, they would support it. Thus did they publicly declare that they would, under certain circumstances, obey man rather than God.

But soldiers actually resign up their consciences to their commanders, without reserving any right to obey only in such cases as they may judge not contrary to the laws of God. Were they at liberty to judge whether commands were morally right or not, before they yielded obedience, it would be totally impracticable for nations to prosecute war. Ask a general if his soldiers have the privilege of determining whether his commands are right or not, and he will tell you it is their duty only to obey.

Suppose that a general and his army are shut up in a city in their own country, and that provisions are failing; that an army is advancing for their relief, but cannot reach the place until all means of sustenance will be consumed; that the inhabitants cannot be let out without admitting the besiegers; and that in this extremity, to preserve his army for the defense of his country, the commander orders his men to slay the inhabitants, doing this evil that good may come. But some conscientious soldiers refuse to obey a command to put the innocent to the sword for any supposed good. What must be the consequence? Their lives must answer for their disobedience. Nor is this contrary to the usages of war. And Christians satisfy their consciences upon the false principle that soldiers are not accountable for their conduct, be it ever so criminal, if they obey their commanders; all the blame must fall on the officers, which involves the absurdity of obeying man rather than God. Thus soldiers must be metamorphosed into something besides moral and accountable beings in order to prosecute war; and, in fact, they are treated generally not as moral agents but as a sort of machinery to execute the worst of purposes.

The only plausible method of which I can conceive to avoid the above consequences requires that soldiers should not practically resign their consciences, but, when commands which are morally wrong are given, that they should refuse obedience and die as martyrs. But to enter an army with such views would be to belie the very oath of obedience which they take. Besides, who could execute the martyrs and be innocent? In this way all might become martyrs, and the army be annihilated.

But if war does not admit the free exercise of conscience on Christian principles, then it is criminal for Christians to become soldiers, and the principles of war must be inconsistent with the principles of Christianity.

IV. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT IS OPPOSED TO PATIENT SUFFERING UNDER UNJUST AND CRUEL TREATMENT

That patient suffering under unjust and cruel treatment from mankind is everywhere in the gospel held up to view as the highest Christian virtue probably few professing Christians will deny.

But notwithstanding this truth is generally admitted, there is very commonly introduced a carnal, sophistical mode of reasoning to limit, or explain away, this precious doctrine, which is peculiar to the gospel and which distinguishes it from all other kinds of morality and religion on earth. It has relation, it is said, only to matters of religion and religious persecution,—as if the gospel required mankind actually to regard a little wealth and a few temporal things more than all religious privileges and life itself; for, by this human maxim, men may fight to defend the former, but not the latter. And this maxim is built on the supposition that Christians are not bound strictly by gospel precepts in relation to temporal things, but only in relation to spiritual things. Hence it is said that the martyrs conducted nobly in refusing to fight for the privilege of worshiping the true God, but if Christians now refuse to fight to defend their money and their political freedom they act in a dastardly manner and violate the first principles of nature. Thus are temporal regarded more than spiritual and everlasting things.

The precepts of the gospel, however, unequivocally forbid returning evil for evil, and enjoin patient sufferings under injurious and cruel treatment. A few instances shall be quoted: “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men. See that none render evil for evil to any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and unto all men.” “If, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.” The apostle James, in his solemn denunciation against oppressors, says, “Ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not resist you”; he then immediately exhorts the Christians, saying, “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.” “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one for another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous, not rendering evil for evil, railing for railing; but contrariwise blessings, knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.” “For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?”

A patient, forbearing, suffering disposition is peculiar to the lamblike temper of the gospel, and is wholly opposed to the bold, contending, daring spirit of the world which leads mankind into quarreling and fighting.

It is generally admitted, I believe, that it is the duty of Christians patiently to suffer the loss of all temporal things, and even life itself, rather than willfully violate any of God’s commands. If, then, it is the duty of a Christian patiently to suffer death rather than bear false witness against his neighbor, be he friend or foe, is it not equally his duty patiently to suffer death rather than kill his neighbor, whether friend or foe? Not merely taking away the life of our neighbor is forbidden, but every exercise of heart and hand which may have a natural tendency to injure him. But which is the greatest evil,—telling a lie, or killing a man? By human maxims you may do the latter to save your life, but not the former; though the former might injure no one but yourself, while the latter, besides injuring yourself, might send your neighbor to eternal destruction.

The spirit of martyrdom is the true spirit of Christianity. Christ himself meekly and submissively died by the hands of his enemies, and instead of resistance, even by words, he prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Stephen, when expiring under a shower of stones from his infuriate murderers, prayed, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” St. Paul testified that he was not only ready to be bound but to die for the Lord Jesus. The early martyrs resigned up their lives with patient submission as witnesses for Jesus,—and this at a time, when, Sir Henry Moncrief Wellwood in his Sermons, page 335, says, “Tertullian has told us that Christians were sufficiently numerous to have defended themselves against the persecutions excited against them by the heathen, if their religion had permitted them to have recourse to the sword.”

The spirit of martyrdom is the crowning test of Christianity. The martyr takes joyfully the spoiling of his goods, and counts not his life dear to himself.

But how opposite is the spirit of war to the spirit of martyrdom! The former is bold and vindictive, ready to defend property and honor at the hazard of life, ready to shed the blood of an enemy. The latter is meek and submissive, ready to resign property and life rather than injure even an enemy. Surely patient submission under cruel and unjust treatment is not only the highest Christian virtue but the most extreme contrast to the spirit of war.

Now if it is a duty required by the gospel not to return evil for evil, but to overcome evil with good; to suffer injustice and to receive injury with a mild, patient, and forgiving disposition,—not only in words but in actions,—then all kinds of carnal contention and warfare are criminal and totally repugnant to the gospel, whether engaged in by individuals or by communities.

Can it be right for Christians to attempt to defend with hostile weapons the things which they profess but little to regard? They profess to have their treasure not in this world but in heaven above, which is beyond the reach of earthly invaders, so that it is not in the power of earth or hell to take away their dearest interests. There may be a propriety in the men of the world exclaiming that their dearest rights are invaded when their property and political interests are infringed upon; but it is a shame for Christians to make this exclamation, while they profess to believe that their dearest interest is in the hand of Omnipotence, and that the Lord God of hosts is their defense.

Whoever, without divine command, dares to lift his hand with a deathly weapon against the life of his fellow-man for any supposed injury denies the Christian character in the very act, and relies on his own arm instead of relying on God for defense.

V. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT IS NOT DOING TO OTHERS AS WE SHOULD WISH THEM TO DO TO US

Says our blessed Saviour, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.” Now if we wish men to be kind and forbearing to us, we must be kind and forbearing to them; if we wish them to return love for hatred and good for evil, then we must return love for hatred and good for evil; if we wish not to be injured by men, then we must not injure them; if we wish not to be killed, then we must not kill.

But what is the practical language of war? Does the man who is fighting his fellow-man and exerting all his strength to overcome him really wish to be overcome himself and to be treated as he is striving to treat his enemy? Can it be believed that England, in the late war, wished France to do to her what she endeavored to do to France; or that the latter really desired in return what she endeavored to inflict on England? If not, both violated this express precept of Christ.

None can say, consistently with the principles of the gospel, that they wish to be killed by their enemies; therefore none can, consistently with those principles, kill their enemies. But professing Christians do kill their enemies, and, notwithstanding all they may say to the contrary, their actions speak louder than their words. It is folly for a man to say he does not wish to do a thing while he is voluntarily exerting all his powers to accomplish it.

But if the act of war does violate this express precept of Christ, then it must be exceedingly criminal to engage in it.

VI. WAR IS INCONSISTENT WITH MERCY, AND IS THEREFORE CRIMINAL

Mercy is the grand characteristic of the gospel, and the practice of mercy is the indispensable duty of man. “Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful”; “For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust”; “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy”; “For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy.”

Mercy is that disposition which inclines us to relieve distress, to forgive injuries, and to promote the best good of those who are ill deserving. Mercy in us towards our enemies implies seeking and pursuing their best good for time and eternity. It is sinful to exercise any affection towards enemies short of that benevolence or mercy which involves the advancement of their best good, and Christians may not suspend this disposition, or do evil that any supposed good may come; for no law can be of higher authority than the express precept of Christ which requires this disposition towards enemies, and of course no other consideration can be paramount to this, for nations are as much bound as individuals.

It is surely too grossly absurd for any to pretend that destroying the property and lives of enemies is treating them mercifully, or pursuing their best good for time and eternity. Nor can any so impose upon their imaginations as to think that injuring mankind is treating them with benevolence or mercy.

But the direct object of war is injury to enemies; and the conduct of soldiers generally speaks a language not easily to be misunderstood. Though soldiers are not always as bad as they might be, their tender mercies are often but cruelty. When they storm a fortified place and do not put all the captives to the sword, they are complimented for exercising mercy, merely because they were not so cruel as they might have been. But shall a highway robber be called an honest man because he takes but half the money of him whom he robs? Is it an act of mercy, when a man encroaches on your property, to take away his life? Do nations exercise mercy towards each other when they enter into bloody wars in consequence of a dispute which shall govern a small portion of territory? or does a nation show mercy to another that has actually invaded its rights by falling upon the aggressor and doing all the injury in its power? This surely is not forgiving injuries. And when two contending armies come in contact and rush on each other with all the frightful engines of death and cut each other to pieces they do not appear to me as merciful, kind, and tender-hearted, forgiving one another in love, even as God for Christ’s sake forgives his children. Yet this is the rule by which they should act and by which they will at last be judged.

But the whole system of war is opposed to mercy, and is therefore altogether unlike the spirit of the gospel, and must be criminal.

VII. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS THE PRACTICE OF IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH FORGIVING TRESPASSES AS WE WISH TO BE FORGIVEN BY THE FINAL JUDGE

Our Saviour says: “If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses”; “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”

Here it is evident that the everlasting salvation of men depends on their exercising forgiveness towards their enemies; for if they forgive not, they will not be forgiven of God, and with what measure they mete to others, it will be measured to them again.

To forgive is to pass by an offense, treating the offender not according to his desert, but as though he had done nothing amiss.

But do the principles of war lead individuals or nations to pass by offenses and to treat offenders as if they were innocent? Do they not, on the contrary, require justice and exact the very last mite? Has it the aspect of forgiveness for us, when an enemy trespasses on our rights, to arm with weapons of slaughter and meet him on the field of battle? Who, while piercing the heart of his enemy with a sword, can consistently utter this prayer: “Father, forgive my trespasses, as I have forgiven the trespasses of this my enemy”? But this, in reference to this subject, is the only prayer the gospel warrants him to make. And professing Christian nations, while at war and bathing their swords in each other’s blood to redress mutual trespasses, are daily in their public litanies offering this prayer; but is it not obvious that either their prayers are perfect mockery, or they desire not to be forgiven but to be punished to the extent of their deserts?

If individuals or nations desire that God would forgive their trespasses, then they must not only pray for it, but actually exercise forgiveness towards those who trespass against them; and then they may beat their useless swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and learn war no more.

But it must be very criminal to engage in war, or to tolerate it in any way, if it is inconsistent with the forgiveness of injuries as we hope to be forgiven, and in this respect violates the precepts of the gospel.

VIII. ENGAGING IN WAR IS NOT MANIFESTING LOVE TO ENEMIES OR RETURNING GOOD FOR EVIL

Returning good for evil and manifesting benevolence to enemies is, perhaps, the most elevated and noble part of Christian practice,—the inculcation of which in the gospel exalts Christianity far above any other form of religion and proves it to be not only divine but efficacious to subdue the turbulent and corrupt passions of men; and for these reasons this part of duty ought to be zealously advocated and diligently performed by every one who bears the Christian name.

The ablest writers who have defended the divine origin of the Scriptures against infidels have urged this topic as constituting conclusive evidence in their favor; and unbelievers, instead of attempting to meet the argument fairly, have urged the inconsistency of Christians in acting contrary to so conspicuous a rule of duty; and such is and ever has been the most powerful weapon that infidels can wield against Christianity. But it is the will of God that by welldoing we should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Let Christians act in strict conformity to this part of Christian practice, and they will wrest from the infidel’s hand his strongest weapon.

That exercising benevolence towards enemies and returning good for evil is inculcated as one of the most important doctrines of the gospel is evident as well from the whole tenor of the New Testament as from the express commands of the Son of God: “I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father in heaven”; “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head”; “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Such are some of the divine precepts on this subject. So different, however, are the laws of war among Christian nations, that rendering comfort or relief to enemies is considered high treason, and they punish with death the performance of the very duty which God commands as a condition of eternal life!

The common sense of every man revolts from the idea that resisting an enemy by war is returning good for evil. Who would receive the thrust of a sword as an act of kindness? Was it ever considered that killing a man was doing good to him? Has not death always been considered the greatest evil which could be returned for capital crimes? But the principles of war not only allow enemies to return evil for evil by killing one another, but secure the highest praise to him who kills the most. It is often said of those who distinguish themselves in butchering their fellow-men, that “they cover themselves with glory!”

Nations, when they go to war, do not so much as pretend to be actuated by love to their enemies; they do not hesitate to declare in the face of Heaven that their object is to avenge their wrongs. But, says an inspired apostle, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Retributive judgment, the execution of strict justice, or vengeance, God declares often, belongs to him. He has reserved it in his own hand as his sovereign prerogative.

It is not very surprising that savage pagans should glory in revenge, but that those should do so who have the Bible in their hands, and profess to take it as the rule of their faith and practice, is truly astonishing. Still more astonishing is it that some ministers of the gospel not only connive at but approve of the spirit and practice of revenge by war.

But though the whole tenor of the gospel absolutely enjoins returning good for evil and blessing for cursing; yet the open and avowed principles of war are to return evil for evil, violence for violence.

Now if the principles of war are so directly opposed to the principles of the gospel, if the practice of war is so perfectly contrary to Christian practice, then it must be very criminal for Christians not to bear open testimony against war, and much more criminal to do anything to promote it.

IX. WAR IS CRIMINAL, BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY RENDERING EVIL FOR EVIL

It is a fact which can neither be disguised nor controverted that the whole trade of war is returning evil for evil. This is a fundamental principle in the system of self-defense. Therefore every exertion in the power of contending nations is made to inflict mutual injury, not merely upon persons in public employment and upon public property, but indiscriminately upon all persons and property. Hence it is an established rule of what is styled “civilized warfare” that if one party takes a person suspected of being a spy, they put him to death; which act is retaliated by the other the first opportunity. If one party storms a fortified place and puts the garrison or the inhabitants to the sword, the other, in their defense, must retaliate the same thing, and, if possible, to a greater degree. If one side executes a number of captives for some alleged extraordinary act, the other, on the principles of self-defense, may execute double the number; the first may then, on the same principles, double this number; and so they may proceed to return evil for evil, till one or the other yields.

The principles of self-defense require not merely an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but for one eye two eyes, for one tooth two teeth. They require the retaliation of an injury to a double degree,—otherwise, there would be no balance in favor of the defensive side; but as both parties must always be on the defense, both must, of course, retaliate to a double degree. Thus war is aggravated and inflamed, and its criminality raised to the highest pitch.

The doctrine of retaliation is not only openly avowed and practiced by professing Christian nations, but is sometimes defended before national councils by professing Christians of high standing in churches. “O! tell it not in Gath! publish it not in the streets of Askelon! lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph!”

That the retaliation of injury, of whatever kind it may be and to whomsoever it may be offered, is most absolutely and unequivocally forbidden by the whole spirit of the gospel dispensation, as well as by its positive precepts, surely can never be fairly controverted.

Says the great Author and finisher of our faith, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Whether the literal import of these words be contended for or not, they cannot fairly be construed as teaching anything short of a positive and unconditional prohibition of the retaliation of injury. Had our Lord added to these words the maxim of the world, “If any man assaults you with deathly weapons, you may repel him with deathly weapons,” it would have directly contradicted the spirit of this command and made his sayings like a house divided against itself.

The apostles largely insist upon this doctrine of their divine Master, thus: “Recompense to no man evil for evil”; “Be ye all of one mind, not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing”; “See that none render evil for evil to any man.” These comprehensive passages make no conditions or limitations, and are, therefore, applicable to all men and binding upon all in all situations and circumstances under the light of the gospel; but had they added, “If any man injures you, you may return him an injury and repel violence with violence,” it would have been most palpably absurd, and the precepts of the gospel would have been truly what infidels have asserted they are,—a series of gross contradictions.

But I repeat that the open and avowed principles of war, even among Christian nations, are those of returning evil for evil. Surely, nations neither aim nor pretend to aim at the best good of their enemies; but, on the contrary, their real and professed object in the sight of God and man is to do them, while at war, all the injury in their power. What means that language which conveys instructions to those who command ships of war, to sink, burn, and destroy, if it does not mean evil to enemies? Why do nations encourage the cupidity of men by licensing and letting loose swarms of picaroons on their enemies, if it is not to inflict evil on them? But all this is sanctioned under the notion of self-defense, and, as though it were a light thing for men thus publicly to trample on the laws of the gospel, they lift up their daring hands to heaven and supplicate God’s help to assist them in violating his own commands! No apology can be made for such proceedings until it is shown that war is not returning evil for evil.

But what is it to return evil for evil?

When one man is injured by another and returns injury, he returns evil for evil and violates those precepts of the gospel which have been quoted. When one association of men is injured by another association and the injured returns an injury, evil is returned for evil and those precepts are violated. When one nation infringes on the rights of another and they in return infringe on the aggressor’s rights, they return evil for evil and violate those precepts. When one nation declares war against another and is repelled by war, evil is returned for evil and those precepts are violated. But these things are constantly practiced, without a blush or a question as to their propriety; and God is supplicated to aid in the business.

To what a state has sin reduced our world? Is not the church covered with darkness and the people with gross darkness? A man may now engage in war with his fellow-man and openly return evil for evil, and still remain in respectable standing in most of the churches, being at the same time highly applauded and caressed by the world lying in wickedness!

But if we are here to be directed and at last to be judged by the gospel, no man can return evil for evil, in war or otherwise, without aggravated guilt.

X. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT IS ACTUALLY DOING EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME; AND THIS IS THE BEST APOLOGY THAT CAN BE MADE FOR IT

That it is an evil to spread distress, desolation, and misery through a land and to stain it with the blood of men probably none will deny. War, with its attending horrors, is considered by all, even those who advocate and prosecute it, to be the greatest evil that ever befalls this wicked, bleeding, suffering world.

Though men go to war primarily to gratify their corrupt passions,—for they can never propose the attainment of any good by war which shall be commensurate with the natural and moral evils that will be occasioned by the acquisition,—yet the prospect of attaining some supposed good must be held out as a lure to the multitude and a means of self-justification.

Usually the object of war is pompously represented to be to preserve liberty, to produce honorable and lasting peace, and promote the happiness of mankind; to accomplish which, liberty, property, and honor—that honor which comes from men—must be defended, though war is the very thing that generally destroys liberty, property, and happiness, and prevents lasting peace. Such is the good proposed to be attained by the certain and overwhelming evil of war.

But no maxim is more corrupt, more false in its nature, or more ruinous in its results than that which tolerates doing evil that good may come. Nor can any defend this maxim without taking the part of infidels and atheists, to whom it appropriately belongs, and with whose principles and practice alone it is consistent.

The apostle Paul reprobates this maxim in the severest terms, and he considered it the greatest scandal of Christian character to be accused of approving it: “As we be slanderously reported,” says he, “and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil that good may come; whose damnation is just.”

Now if war is in fact an evil, and it is prosecuted with a view to attain some good, then going to war is doing evil that good may come. It is therefore doing that which scandalizes Christian character; that which is wholly irreconcilable with the principles of the gospel, and which it is highly criminal for any man or nation to do.

XI. WAR IS OPPOSED TO THE EXAMPLE OF THE SON OF GOD, AND IS THEREFORE CRIMINAL

The example of the Son of God is the only perfect model of moral excellence, and his moral conduct, so far as he acted as man, remains a perfect example for Christians.

But did he appear in this world as a great military character, wearing a sword of steel, clothed with military finery, and surrounded by glittering soldiers, marching in the pomp and parade of a warrior? No; he was the meek and lowly Jesus, despised and rejected of men. He was King of kings and Lord of lords, but his kingdom was not of this world. Had his kingdom been of this world, then would he have appeared as an earthly conqueror, and his servants would have been warriors.

Though a prince, he was the Prince of Peace. At his advent the angels sang, “Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will to men.” “He came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” He was the Lamb of God, meek and lowly. He followed peace with all men; he returned good for evil and blessing for cursing, and “when he was reviled he reviled not again.” Finally, he was “brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” That he did this as a necessary part of his mediatorial work need not be denied; but that he intended it also as an example to his followers is fully confirmed by an inspired apostle, who says, “If, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him who judgeth righteously.”

Christ taught his disciples the doctrines of peace, and commanded them to take up the cross and follow him; to live in peace and to follow peace with all men. His last gift to them was peace. He said to them, when about to send them into the world, “Behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves”; thus teaching them what treatment they might expect and what character they must maintain among wicked men. The nature of lambs and wolves is too well known for any one to mistake this figurative representation. Wolves are fierce, bloody, and ravenous beasts; but lambs are mild, inoffensive, and unresisting, having no means of relief but by flight. Now if a host of professing Christian warriors, marshaled under the ensign of a preying eagle or a prowling lion, clothed in all the splendor of deathly armor, and rushing forward to destroy their fellow-creatures, are in figurative language but lambs, I confess I am at a loss where to look for the wolves! Do these warlike Christians appear mild as lambs and harmless as doves, kind and tender-hearted, doing good to all, to friends and foes, as they have opportunity? Can fighting be living peaceably with all men? Is it returning good for evil, and overcoming evil with good? If not, it is not imitating the example of Christ.

If Christians were like Christ, their warfare would not be carnal, but spiritual, corresponding with the armor which he has provided. They would conquer by faith and overcome by the blood of the Lamb, not counting their lives dear to themselves.

On the whole, if to engage in war is not avoiding the appearance of evil, but is running into temptation; if it inflates the pride of men; if it infringes on the rights of conscience; if it is not forgiving trespasses as we wish to be forgiven; if it is not patient suffering under unjust and cruel treatment; if it is not doing to others as we would have them do to us; if it is not manifesting love to enemies and returning good for evil; if it is rendering evil for evil; if it is doing evil that good may come; and if it is inconsistent with the example of Christ, then it is altogether contrary to the spirit and precepts of the gospel and is highly criminal. Then Christians cannot engage in war or approve of it without incurring the displeasure of Heaven.

In view of the subject, if what has been said is in substance correct, and of this I desire the reader conscientiously to judge, then the criminality of war and its inconsistency with the gospel are undeniable.

It is admitted by all that war cannot exist without criminality somewhere, and generally where quarreling and strife are, there is blame on both sides. And how it is that many Christians who manifest a laudable zeal to expose and counteract vice and wickedness in various other forms are silent on the subject of war, silent as to those parts or practices of war which are manifestly and undisputably criminal, is to me mysterious. There has been a noble and persevering opposition against the inhuman and cruel practice of the slave trade; and by the blessing of God the efforts against it have been successful, probably, for the time, beyond the most sanguine expectations. When the lawfulness of this practice was first called in question, it was violently defended as well by professing Christians as by others. Comparatively few Christians fifty years ago doubted the propriety of buying and holding slaves; but now a man advocating the slave trade could hardly hold in this vicinity a charitable standing in any of the churches. But whence has arisen so great a revolution in the minds of the mass of professing Christians on this subject? It has happened not because the spirit or precepts of the gospel have changed, but because they are better understood.

Christians who have been early educated to believe that a doctrine is correct, and who cherish a respect for the instructions of their parents and teachers, seldom inquire for themselves, after arriving at years of maturity, unless something special calls up their attention; and then they are too apt to defend the doctrine they have imbibed before they examine it, and to exert themselves only to find evidence in its favor. Thus error is perpetuated from generation to generation until God, in his providence, raises up some to bear open testimony against it; and as it becomes a subject of controversy, one after another gains light, and truth is at length disclosed and established. Hence it is the solemn duty of every one, however feeble his powers, to bear open testimony against whatever error prevails, for God is able from small means to produce great effects.

There is at present in many of our churches a noble standard lifted up against the abominable sin of intemperance, the greatest evil, perhaps, war excepted, in the land, and this destructive vice has already received a check from which it will never recover unless Christians relax their exertions. But if war is a greater evil than drunkenness, how can Christians remain silent respecting it and be innocent?

Public teachers consider it to be their duty boldly and openly to oppose vice. From the press and from the pulpit they denounce theft, profaneness, Sabbath breaking, and intemperance; but war is a greater evil than all these, for these and many other evils follow in its train.

Most Christians believe that in the millennial day all weapons of war will be converted into harmless utensils of use, that wars will cease to the ends of the earth, and that the benign spirit of peace will cover the earth as the waters do the seas. But there will be then no new gospel, no new doctrines of peace; the same blessed gospel which we enjoy will produce “peace on earth and good will to men.” And is it not the duty of every Christian now to exhibit the same spirit and temper which will be then manifested? If so, let every one “follow the things that make for peace,” and the God of peace shall bless him.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

As was proposed, a number of objections to the general sentiments that have been advocated shall be stated and answered.

Objection first. Shall we stand still and suffer an assassin to enter our houses without resistance and let him murder ourselves and families?

Answer. I begin with this because it is generally the first objection that is made to the doctrine of peace by all persons, high and low, learned and unlearned; notwithstanding it is an objection derived from a fear of consequences and not from a conviction of duty, and might with the same propriety have been made to the martyrs who, for conscience’ sake, refused to repel their murderers with carnal weapons, as to Christians who, for conscience’ sake, refuse at this day to resist evil. No Christian will pretend that defense with carnal weapons is not criminal, if the gospel really forbids it, let the consequences of nonresistance be what they may. For the requisitions of the gospel are the rule of duty. But I presume the objection above stated arises altogether from an apprehension of consequences rather than from regard to duty.

Every candid person must admit that this objection is of no force, until the question whether the gospel does or does not prohibit resistance with deathly weapons is first settled. It might, therefore, justly be dismissed without further remark; but as mankind are often more influenced by supposed consequences than by considerations of duty, and as the objection is very popular, it may deserve a more particular reply.

In the first place, I would observe that the supposition of the objector relates to a very extreme case, a case which has very rarely, if ever, occurred to Christians holding to nonresistance with deathly weapons, and it bears little or no resemblance to the general principles or practices of war which are openly advocated and promoted by professing Christians. Should an event like that supposed in the objection take place, it would be a moment of surprise and agitation in which few could act collectedly from principle. What was done would probably be done in perturbation of mind. But war between nations is a business of calculation and debate, affording so much time for reflection that men need not act from sudden and violent impulse, but may act from fixed principle. In this respect, therefore, war is a very different thing from what is involved in the objection which does not in the least affect the principles or practice of systematic warfare. It is not uncommon to hear persons who are hopefully pious, when pressed by the example and the precepts of Christ against war, acknowledge that most of the wars which have existed since the gospel dispensation cannot be justified on Christian principles; yet these very persons are never heard to disapprove of the common principles of war, or to counteract them by their lives and conversation before a wicked world; but, on the contrary, they will often eulogize heroes, join in the celebration of victories, and take as deep an interest in the result of battles as the warriors of this world; and if their conduct is called in question, they will attempt to justify it by pleading the necessity of self-defense, and immediately introduce the above objection which is by no means parallel with the general principles and practices of all wars.

The truth is, war is a very popular thing among mankind, because it is so congenial to their natural dispositions; and, however gravely some men may, at times, profess to deplore its calamity and wickedness, it is too evident that they take a secret pleasure in the approbation of the multitude and in the fascinating glory of arms; and we have reason to believe that this objection is often made merely to ward off the arrows of conviction which would otherwise pierce their consciences.

The objection, however, wholly overlooks the providence and promise of God. Assassins do not stroll out of the circle of God’s providence. Not only is their breath in his hand, but the weapons they hold are under his control. Besides, God’s children are dear to him, and he shields them by his protecting care, not suffering any event to befall them except such as shall be for his glory and their good. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He has promised to be a very present help to them in every time of need, and to deliver them that trust in him out of all their trouble. He will make even their enemies to be at peace with them. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous and his ears are open to their prayers, but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil; and who is he that will harm you if ye be followers of that which is good? But if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye, and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. If God be thus for his children, who can be against them? Is not the arm of the Lord powerful to save, and a better defense to all who trust in him than swords and guns? Whoever found him unfaithful to his promises or feeble to save? Are not the hosts of heaven at his command? Are not his angels swift to do his will? “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.” If the Lord is on their side, Christians have no cause to fear what man can do unto them. Says the blessed Saviour, “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.”

If consequences are rightly examined, they may prove to be of more importance than at first supposed. If the gospel does forbid resistance with deathly weapons, then he who saves his temporal life by killing his enemy may lose his eternal life; while he who loses his life for Christ’s sake is sure of everlasting life. Thus the Christian, if he is killed, goes to heaven; but the assassin, if he is killed, goes to hell, and the soul of the slayer is in danger of following. Whoever kills another to prevent being killed himself, does it on presumption; for, whatever may be the appearances, God only can know whether one man will assassinate another, before the event has taken place. Men, however, seem to think little of killing or being killed by fighting, whether in single combat or on the field of general battle, though they shudder at the idea of being put to death by an assassin, unless they can inflict or attempt to inflict on him the same evil.

But the objection is usually made on the supposition that the doctrine in question requires Christians to stand still and rather court the dagger than otherwise. This is an unfair statement, for it would be presumption to stand still when there was a chance of escape. Besides, the Christian must act on the defensive, not with carnal, but with spiritual weapons, which are more powerful when exercised in faith than swords or spears.

Probably no instance can be found of robbers murdering such as conscientiously held to nonresistance. It is resistance that provokes violence; forbearance and good will repress it. But if instances of this kind may be found, it is no evidence against the doctrine in question any more than against the principles of the Martyrs. God may, for wise reasons, call away some of his children by the hands of murderers; if so, instead of losing, they save their lives.

Objection second. Self-defense, and, if necessary, with deathly weapons, is the first law of nature. All the animal creation are armed with means of defense, and the principles of the gospel are not contrary to the principles of nature; therefore self-defense is not inconsistent with Christianity.

Answer. It is admitted that the laws of the gospel are not contrary to the primitive laws of nature; but it is by no means granted that they are consistent with the laws of corrupt nature. In consequence of the revolt of man the earth was cursed for his sake. It appears probable that before the fall of man animals were harmless and docile; and it is not improbable that when the curse shall be removed, when the earth shall be filled with righteousness and peace, the lion and the lamb may literally lie down together. At present, indeed, the dove, the lamb, and some other animals have no means of defense, unless flight be considered such. And while warriors are figuratively represented by ferocious beasts, real Christians are represented by lambs and doves. So far as nature is made to speak fairly on the subject, it speaks in favor of the doctrine which has been advocated.

But corrupt nature strongly dictates many things quite contrary to the precepts of the gospel; and no doctrine will be given up more reluctantly by corrupt nature than that of the lawfulness of war, because no doctrine is more congenial with the depraved feelings and propensities of unsanctified men, for their “feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Objection third. The precepts of the gospel are consistent with the moral law, or the eternal nature of things, which is forever the standard of right and wrong to all moral beings in the universe; and war has been prosecuted consistently with this rule of right and wrong; therefore war cannot be contrary to the precepts of the gospel.

Answer. This is an objection founded on an undefinable something aside from divine precept; yet as some terms in it have been much used in polemic divinity by men of eminent talents and piety, whose praise is in the churches, I think it neither proper nor modest to dissent from so high authority without offering some reasons. I shall, therefore, make a few general observations on what is called the moral law, the eternal rule of right and wrong, or the nature of things; all of which phrases, I believe, have been occasionally used by eminent writers as conveying the same ideas.

I cannot agree with such as suppose that a moral law or nature of things exists independently of the will of God and is the common law of God and man. It appears to me as inconsistent to suppose a law to exist without a lawgiver as to suppose a world to exist without a creator. If God is the only eternal and independent Being in the universe, and if all things are the work of his power and goodness, then the supposition that an eternal law exists independently of him appears to me to be absurd, as on this supposition there exists a law without a lawgiver and an effect without a cause. If God is not the author of all things, then there must be more than one eternal cause of things.

To suppose that the reason and fitness of things independently of the will of God, either in his works, his providence, or word, can be a rule of man’s duty appears to me as inconsistent as to suppose that men might institute divine worship from such fitness of things independently of the existence of God; for the will of God to man seems as necessary to lay a foundation of moral obligation and to direct man’s obedience as the existence of God is necessary to lay a foundation of religious worship. Should it be asked whether the laws of God are not founded on the eternal nature and fitness of things, I would answer that such a supposition appears to me no more reasonable than to suppose that his power is founded on the eternal capacity of things; for the capacity of things has just as much reality and eternity in it to found the omnipotence of God upon, as the reason and nature of things have to found his infinite wisdom or justice upon.

I therefore dissent from all standard of moral obligation which are supposed to exist aside from, and independently of, the divine will; and fully agree with the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, in the answer to this question: “What is the duty which God requires of man? Answer: The duty which God requires of man is obedience to his revealed will.” Should it, however, be said that things do exist aside from the divine will, that it does not depend on the divine will, but on the nature of things, that two and two make four, or that a thing cannot be in motion and at rest at the same time, it is by no means admitted that this order or constitution of things exists independently of God; but it is believed to be as much the effect of his power and goodness as anything else. And if God is not the author of all the laws both in the natural and moral world, it may reasonably be inquired, who is?

If God is the moral governor of the world, then all his laws over men, as moral beings, must be moral laws; and to make a distinction between the laws designed to regulate the moral conduct of men, and to call some of them moral and others by different names, seems to me not necessary, while I find no such distinction in the Scriptures. Because some of God’s laws were intended to be temporary, under certain circumstances, they were no less of a moral nature on that account; neither was it any less criminal to violate them.

As created things are in some respects constantly changing, and as the relations of things are often varied, so a law may be relatively right at one time and relatively wrong at another. But as man is frail and short-sighted, and is incapable of seeing the end from the beginning, he is totally unable of himself to judge what is and what is not right, all things considered; hence the necessity of a revelation from God to direct his steps.

That there is a fitness of things and a standard of moral right and wrong cannot be denied; but, instead of being founded in a supposed nature of things independent of God, it originates in the very nature and perfections of God himself, and can never be known by man any farther than the nature and perfections of God are known. A standard of right and wrong independent of God, whether by the name of moral law or nature of things, is what never has been and never can be intelligibly defined. It is like a form without dimensions, like a foundation resting on nothing. It is, therefore, in my opinion, as extravagant to talk of an eternal nature of things, without reference to the laws of God, as it would be to talk of an eternal wisdom or an eternal omnipotence, independent of the existence of God.

But if the statement of the objector is meant only to imply a rule of right and wrong emanating from the nature and perfections of God, and coincident with his laws, then, admitting the propriety of the terms moral law, nature of things, etc., the objection, if it proves anything, may prove quite too much for its advocates; for under certain circumstances it has been consistent with this rule of moral right and wrong utterly to exterminate nations, to destroy men, women, and children, and show them no mercy.

Besides, the whole force of the objection rests on the supposition that no laws which have existed, and which were not contrary to the moral law, can be abrogated under the Christian dispensation or be inconsistent with the precepts of the gospel. It hence follows that whatever has been morally right and lawful for men to do must forever remain right and lawful to be done. This is a necessary result from the premises; but no Christian can consistently subscribe to this. The premises must, therefore, be unsound and the objection of no force.

If literal sacrifices, slavery, and many other practices which are totally abolished under the Christian dispensation were not contrary to the moral law under the Old Testament economy, why may not the same be true of war? Why may not the gospel forbid war as consistently as it can forbid slavery?

Objection fourth. The nature of religion and morality under the ancient dispensation was the same as under the new. Love to God and man was the substance of the law and the prophets; and though truth under the former was inculcated more by types and ceremonies, yet the essence of religion was the same under that as under the present dispensation; and as war was not inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion then, it cannot be inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion now, under like circumstances.

Answer. It is readily admitted that the essence of religion is the same under the present as under the former dispensation, both requiring at all times and in all actions holy exercises of heart in cordial obedience to divine command; yet the laws for external conduct under the two dispensations differ widely, and the practice of war involves much of the external conduct of men. It was never right for men to indulge unholy feelings in the act of war, but the external act was required as a means of executing the divine vengeance; the gospel does not command, but seems plainly to forbid, the external act of war.

But to suppose that saints under the gospel can ever be placed in circumstances like those of the ancient church is to suppose that they may be put under the same typical economy which has vanished away, given place to the substance, and ceased to be binding even on the natural Israelites. To be in like circumstances they must also be made the executors of God’s wrath, to inflict vengeance, by his particular command, on idolatrous and rebellious nations. The Israelites had the same high authority to exterminate the Canaanites and subdue the idolatrous nations about Palestine that the holy angels had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is perfectly plain that if God should positively command Christians to take the weapons of war and not only repel invasion but actually exterminate nations, it would be their duty to obey, and a refusal would be open rebellion against God. The Old Testament saints received such commands, but Christians have no such authority, which makes a material difference in circumstances.

Some general observations relative to the different dispensations of the church of God may illustrate this topic more fully.

The Old Testament economy has sometimes, perhaps without reason, been divided into the Adamic, Patriarchal, and Mosaic dispensations of the church; but as the latter was more full and complete, and as the distinction between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations is common, I shall confine my remarks chiefly to that distinction, though I consider the great distinction to be between the Old and New Testament economies.

The Old Testament economy, in general, was typical of the New. Under the former dispensation literal and temporal things typified spiritual and everlasting things under the latter. The nation of Israel, chosen and separated from all other nations, typified the true Israel of God, who are chosen out of every nation and sanctified and set apart as a holy nation and peculiar people, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God. The land of Canaan was a type of the heavenly Canaan. Jerusalem was a type of the New Jerusalem from above. Mount Zion and the royal throne of Israel, which were in Jerusalem, typified the heavenly Zion and the throne of the true David who now reigns in glory. The sacrifices were types of spiritual offerings. The Israelites had enemies within and foes without, literal weapons of war and literal warfare, typical of spiritual foes, spiritual armor, and spiritual warfare.[1] Their kings were seated on the throne of the Lord (see 1 Chron. xxix. 23). At the command of God they judged and made war and conquered their enemies and thus typified the Son of God who is now on the throne of his Father David, and who in righteousness judges and makes war and rides forth conquering and to conquer. The ancient promises and threatenings were mostly temporal, but typical of spiritual and everlasting promises and threatenings. Doubtless the gospel was preached by types and figures under the Old Testament economy, and the saints of old looked upon those temporal things merely as shadows representing a more enduring substance. When they looked upon Canaan, the land of promise, they viewed it as a type of the heavenly Canaan, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth seeking a better country. When they looked on the bleeding lamb they beheld, by the eye of faith, the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world.

Thus we may see that almost the whole of the Old Testament economy was typical and temporary, and not intended to be perfect and everlasting. But under the gospel dispensation we have a new covenant and better promises which are intended to be perfect and everlasting. It is therefore more proper for those who live under this new and perfect dispensation to look at the substance than at the shadow for a rule of duty. Errors are often and easily propagated by reasoning from analogy and introducing it as proof of sentiments instead of illustration. This is frequently done in relation to the Old Testament economy and common political government. It is not uncommon to hear ministers, in their political sermons, reason and infer just as if there were a perfect parallel between the Jewish theocracy and political governments, when at the head of one was the Lord of hosts and at the head of the others are but men; when one was the church of the living God, and the others are but human institutions. They not unfrequently speak of God’s driving out the heathen before his American Israel and planting them in a goodly land, as though there were a perfect parallel between the Americans driving the Indians from their native soil and taking possession of it themselves, without divine commission, and the Israelites going at the express command of God and taking possession of Canaan. Thus they endeavor to keep up a parallel between God’s ancient church and civil governments. The economy of God’s ancient covenant people was by no means a political institution in the popular sense, but it was a dispensation of the church of God, and in its rites, ceremonies, and government was typical of the kingdom of Messiah under his mediatorial reign, and differed widely in its nature, origin, and design from mere political governments; therefore all reasoning drawn from a supposed analogy between them is specious and false. The Israelites had no authority to enact laws or to alter God’s laws one iota; their duty was implicitly to obey them.

But if Christians take their authority for going to war from the practice of the Old Testament saints, their example will prove too much; it will not only allow war, but offensive war in its most dreadful forms.

Objection fifth. Abraham went to war, not like the Israelites at the command of God, yet he met with the divine approbation when he returned from the slaughter of the kings; he, therefore, must have acted on a universal law still in force; and as Christians are called the children of Abraham they ought, of course, to imitate his example in such things as God approved.

Answer. Abraham, like the Israelites, was under a typical dispensation and practiced rites and ceremonies which were a shadow of good things to come. That he acted without divine command, in the war referred to, is more than we are warranted to say. He was a prophet and the friend of God and probably was acquainted with the divine will on this subject.

Christians are not called the children of Abraham because they imitate his example in war, but because they exercise like precious faith with him. If Christians are warranted to imitate the example of Abraham in all things which were tolerated by God, then they may sacrifice cattle, practice polygamy, and buy and hold slaves. But if they object to his example as a rule of duty in these instances, why not object to his example as a rule of duty in the case of war?

But to say that he acted from some universal law still in force is taking for granted the question in dispute, and cannot be admitted without evidence.

The war waged by Abraham against the kings was, I apprehend, offensive rather than defensive; for Lot, his brother’s son, whom he rescued, did not then belong to his family or kingdom, but was separated from him and was also a patriarch, a father of nations, and a prince or head over his own house or kingdom.

It appears very evident that offensive as well as defensive war was tolerated under the patriarchal economy, as may be seen from the words of the inspired Jacob when blessing his sons (Gen. xlviii. 22). That, as well as the Mosaic dispensation, was typical, and doubtless war was allowed under both for the same reasons.

But there can be no doubt that whoever attempts to justify war by the example of Abraham may equally justify the slavery of our fellow-men; and whoever depends on his example for authority for engaging in war, to be consistent, must advocate and defend the doctrine of slavery.

Objection sixth. It appears to be a universal law of God that “whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” If one man, or one nation, attacks another and sheds his blood, his own must be shed in return. Hence this precept not only authorizes taking away the life of a murderer, but authorizes nations to repel by war nations that wage war against them.

Answer. Whether this was a precept given to man as a rule of duty or not is very questionable, though it has generally been so construed, at least since the dark ages of the church; and it is still more questionable whether it is a universal and perpetual law.

If we attend to the phraseology of this decree of God, we shall find it to be very different from that of the precepts, generally, delivered to Moses. God did not say to Noah, as he often did to Moses, thou shalt do this, or that, but he said, “I will require the life of man,” etc. If God had designed to delegate executive authority to Noah and his descendants to execute retributive judgment on the manslayer, the connection of the whole language must have been altered, for God declared what he would do himself. It appears, therefore, to have been God’s decree, and the promulgation of his law by which he would inflict righteous judgment on the guilty; the penalty was intended as a warning to deter mankind from violence, the sin for which the old world was swept away. And I see no reason why this threatening should not be considered parallel with the decrees of Christ,—that “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword; he that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword; here is the faith and the patience of the saints.” Why the former should be considered as a rule of obedience for man, and these latter passages not so, I am unable to say. “He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword” is as positive as “whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”

It may be observed that the faith and patience of the saints is here spoken of in such a way as to imply that they exercised and manifested their faith and patience when they were put to death by violence or carried into captivity. And, indeed, how could their faith and patience appear if they, like the wicked world, returned evil for evil, carried into captivity, and killed with the sword?

The original threatening has been fulfilled by the providence, and sometimes by the express command, of God. As Noah was the head of the new world and the father of nations, it seems to have had reference to nations rather than to individuals; and all nations that have shed blood in war must, in their turn, have their own blood shed; so that all they that take the sword may perish with the sword agreeably to the threatening made known to Noah, and to those announced by Christ.

But, admitting that the law quoted in the objection was intended as a rule of duty for man, it does not appear that it was designed to be universal and perpetual. Before the flood no authority appears in any sense to have been delegated to man to shed the blood of man. So far from executing the penalty of death or causing it to be executed upon Cain, who was of the wicked one and slew his brother, notwithstanding his guilty forebodings, God threatened a sevenfold vengeance on him who should presume to do it.

Under the Mosaic dispensation many crimes were punishable with death according to positive precept; but God, for wise reasons, did not always have the penalty executed. David was guilty of murder and adultery, both capital crimes; yet he was permitted to live.

All kinds of vindictive punishment under the Christian dispensation appear to be absolutely forbidden. By vindictive I mean that which is intended to vindicate the law, as executing strict justice, and prevent offenses only, as taking away life, but which is not designed to promote the individual good of the person punished. That punishment which is designed and which has a tendency to promote the good of the punished, as well as to deter offenders, I consider to be strictly disciplinary or corrective, and consistent with the spirit and precepts of the gospel. Says an apostle, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” It has been said that this only forbids a revengeful temper, but this evasion will not do; for Christians are here forbidden to do the very thing which God declares he will do himself, and he does nothing but what is holy.

“Render to no man evil for evil,” is a positive precept without any limitation, and which admits of no evasion; and it must plainly rescind the law of shedding man’s blood because he had shed the blood of man.

But the exclamation is often made, What, not punish a murderer with death! Little do those who make this exclamation think that they themselves also are sinners and that every sin deserves not only temporal death but God’s wrath and curse forever, and that they are in like condemnation unless redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. For such, it might be well to inquire if they know “what manner of spirit they are of.”

The most prominent characteristic of Messiah’s reign over men in this world is mercy, since he has secured the rights and honor of the divine government by the sacrifice of himself so that the guilty may live. He has given his life as a ransom and taken the world into his hands as the ruler, judge, and rewarder, and offers the chief of sinners mercy; and the merits of his blood are sufficient to cleanse from all sin as well against man as against God. And who can help being astonished at the amazing difference between his laws and his dealings with men, and those sanguinary laws of men according to which under the light of the gospel they punish with death.

The professed principle and design of these laws is strict justice; but were men dealt with according to strict justice by him who rules above, who would be able to stand? These laws of men accept no atonement for capital offenses; no mercy is offered, for none is provided for those who incur their penalty; but the gospel offers mercy to the chief of sinners while it condemns those who reject the offers. Capital offenders will never be condemned by civil governments for the rejection of offered mercy, for no mercy is provided for them. How unlike the divine government! But Christians are commanded to be merciful, as their Father in heaven is merciful, who showers down blessings on the evil and unthankful. Our Master has told us that with what judgment we judge we shall be judged; and with what measure we mete it shall be measured to us again; that if we forgive we shall be forgiven; and if we forgive not we shall not be forgiven; and that if we show no mercy we shall have judgment without mercy.

Christians ought to ponder the subject well before they advocate the consistency and safety of dispensing justice without mercy. Let them learn what that meaneth, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.”

Objection seventh. “Every purpose is established by counsel, and with good advice make war”; “For by wise counsel thou shalt make war,” etc. Here war is recognized as a duty under certain circumstances, and the manner in which it is to be undertaken is pointed out, viz., by wise counsel.

Answer. The inspired Proverbs are maxims of wisdom illustrated, for the most part, by some familiar subject that existed at the time they were delivered. The object here is not to inculcate the lawfulness of war but the necessity of sound wisdom in relation to the actions of men; and the subject of war appears to be introduced merely to illustrate this idea. The counsel and wisdom of men in relation to their temporal and worldly concerns are often worthy of imitation in reference to spiritual things; for the children of this world are, in some sense, wiser in their generation than the children of light, and the conduct of worldly men is often very appropriately introduced to illustrate Christian duty. Our Lord says, “What king, going to war with another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?” Doubtless our Lord’s design was to warn people to count the cost before they professed to be followers of him, that they might not be deceived and discouraged, and that they might act from principle and not from hypocrisy. But he inculcated these things by referring to the example of kings in their consultations about war. And it is believed that the passages before cited are of similar import. These references to war, being introduced merely for the illustration of other subjects, will no more prove the lawfulness of war than the reference of the apostle to the Olympic games, for illustration, will prove the lawfulness of those heathen feats. But if this explanation should not be satisfactory, it may be observed that the Proverbs were written under the Old Testament economy which tolerated offensive as well as defensive war; whence it does not appear that any war can be undertaken under the present dispensation, “by wise counsel,” except that which is spiritual; so that if the ancient was typical of the new dispensation, then the passages quoted will now apply only to spiritual warfare.

Objection eighth. When the soldiers demanded of John the Baptist what they should do, one of the directions which he gave them was to be content with their wages. If their occupation had been unlawful, then he would not have directed them to be contented with the wages of wickedness.

Answer. John the Baptist was under the Mosaic economy, the new dispensation not having commenced. He was but the forerunner of the Lord, a herald to sound his approach. But he gave the soldiers another direction, viz., to “do violence to no man,” obedience to which is totally incompatible with war, as that is nothing else but violence. Only hinder soldiers from doing violence to any man and you stop at once the whole progress of war; therefore, if the directions of John are insisted on as gospel authority, they will prove, probably, much more against the lawfulness of war than in favor of it.

Objection ninth. The Centurion and Cornelius were Christians and soldiers and highly approved of God for their faith and piety; nor were they directed by Christ or his apostles to renounce their profession; therefore the profession of arms is not inconsistent with Christian duty.

Answer. They were first soldiers and then Christians; and we have no evidence that they continued in the profession of arms; nor are we warranted to say that they were not directed to renounce that profession, as the Scriptures are silent on the subject. Peter, it appears, tarried a number of days with Cornelius, and he doubtless explained to him the spirit and precepts of the gospel; and it is very probable that neither Cornelius nor the Centurion continued soldiers in any other sense than they were soldiers of Christ, as the idolatrous rites enjoined on the Roman soldiers were totally inconsistent with the Christian character, aside from the unlawfulness of war itself. Besides, the Roman soldiers were as often engaged in offensive as in defensive war; therefore, if the argument has any force on the question, it will tolerate not only defensive but offensive war, and also the idolatrous rites of the Roman armies.

Objection tenth. Our Lord paid tribute money, which went to support military power, but he would not contribute to the support of a wicked thing, therefore war is not inconsistent with Christianity.

Answer. A distinguished trait of the Christian religion is peace. The command is, “Follow peace with all men.” “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

Our Lord set the example of giving no just cause of offense to any. Tribute was demanded of him unjustly according to the existing laws, but lest fault should be found, he wrought a miracle and paid it. Money is a temporal thing, and belongs to the governments of this world, as the various coins bear the ensign of the nation by whom they were made; but the Christian’s treasure is not in this world, and when the rulers of this world call for that which bears their own image and superscription, Christians have no right to withhold from them their dues, for they must “render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” For this cause they ought to pay tribute and resign up temporal things without a murmur to temporal governments, and leave it with Cæsar to manage the things of Cæsar. Thus far are Christians warranted to act, from the example of Christ and the precepts of the gospel; but how does the lawfulness of war follow from Christians rendering to Cæsar his due? Is it because some of the money goes to support war? Probably, of the money which our Lord paid as much went to the support of idolatry and the games of the day as to the support of war. Now if the argument is sound, we may not only prove by it the lawfulness of war but the lawfulness of idolatry and many other abominable things practiced by the heathen governments.